9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1046 - AT - CustomsExemption on import High Density Polyethylene in the form of granules - Serial No. 477 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - denial for the reason that the exemption is available only to High Density Polyethylene and not for HDPE compound - Held that - The issue is settled in the case of Ratnamani Metal & Tubes Limited vs. CC, Kandla 2013 (8) TMI 851 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that In the absence of any support for the conclusion that the product imported by the appellant has been chemically modified or it is not known as HDPE in the market, the benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 477 has to be extended to the appellant - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus for imported HDPE granules. 2. Interpretation of whether HDPE compound is eligible for exemption under the notification. 3. Consideration of previous Tribunal judgments on similar issues. 4. Application of test certificates and technical literature in determining chemical modification of HDPE. 5. Finality of previous Tribunal decisions accepted by Revenue. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original holding that imported HDPE granules were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The appellant imported HDPE granules for coating pipes used in petroleum operations and water transportation. The Customs duty demand was confirmed, and a penalty was imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. 2. The issue revolved around whether HDPE compound, containing 2% carbon black, was eligible for exemption under the notification. The department argued that since the imported HDPE was a compound with carbon black, it did not qualify for the exemption meant for High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) specifically. 3. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal judgments in similar cases, including Ratnamani Metal & Tubes Limited vs. CC, Kandla, and PSL Limited vs. CC, which were accepted by the Revenue in subsequent cases like Welspun Corpn Limited and Man Industries (India) Limited. The Tribunal found that the issue had been settled in favor of the assessee in these cases. 4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of test certificates and technical literature in determining chemical modification of HDPE. It noted that the addition of carbon black for color and strength did not necessarily constitute chemical modification. The absence of test reports from a Government-controlled laboratory and the reliance on supplier certificates were highlighted in assessing the eligibility for exemption under the notification. 5. The Tribunal concluded that the issue was no longer res-integra based on previous decisions and the settled position of law. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The finality of the previous Tribunal decisions accepted by the Revenue was a crucial factor in the Tribunal's decision. In summary, the judgment addressed the eligibility of HDPE compound for exemption under a specific notification, considering previous Tribunal decisions, the application of test certificates in determining chemical modification, and the finality of accepted precedents in similar cases.
|
